I'm not sure how many of you have read this article yet:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_2.html

Quote :

"The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances... The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities... The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists..."

I was surprised by this move; this is a rather strong move by the President given the recent diplomatic overtures to Iran. Two theories in my opinion: 1) there's been a shift (again) in who's controlling White House diplomatic policy or 2) this is in reaction to the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.

More on the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2130839,00.html

This bill surprises me coming out of the Democratic Congress (unless you believe Salisburyboy's many conspiracy theories about the j00s controlling the nation). Given all their talk about greater diplomacy, if what the article says is correct, it would be a pretty draconian measure and diplomatically provocative, much sharper than the Bush administration's moves, with much harsher sanctions and punishments against foreign companies that operate both in the United States and Iran (particularly Russian and EU companies). This would almost surely undermine American diplomatic efforts in the United Nations to squeeze Iran. To note, it would compel the action that the President just declared. Normally, these sorts of things would be brushed aside except that it seems to have over three hundred supporters in the House and 60 co-sponsors in the Senate (perhaps one of the few bi-partisan bills in Congress right now). Again, a surprisingly unilateral action from Democratic critics that have preached about rebuilding relations with allies and taking more multilateral approaches; I expected this sort of crazy, blunt from Republicans, not the Democrats.

I'm wondering if the White House went ahead and designated the Revolutionary Guard as an attempt to preempt this bill. By throwing Congress a bone, they're attempting to pacify their critics to try and take steam out of this bill. That, or for the more confrontational, neo-con faction, they view this bill as an opening and are moving forward. Thoughts?

8/15/2007 10:13:23 AM

bbc this morning was saying that this is likely a move in the diplomatic direction. this is because if the revolutionary guard is given this designation then we can more freely cut off their money flows. also, the revolutionary guard has apparently become much more than a military organization in recent years, with their hands in many different areas, including real estate and apparently their construction company built the most recent airport (or was it hospital?) in tehran.

8/15/2007 10:28:43 AM

i'm not sure what to make of this--the only reasonable rationale i can come up with is the "carrot and stick" approach, but it seems more apt to just piss people off than anything else

8/15/2007 10:59:27 AM

Dammit. I thought that this had something to do with the Insane Clown Posse.

8/15/2007 12:37:18 PM

Woo Woo! Juggalo!

8/16/2007 2:55:17 AM

I am really having trouble figuring out what to make of this decision to move on the Pasdaran. Sure, a solid argument could be made for them being a terrorist group or at the very least collaborators. The Iraq war aside, the pasdaran have financed Hezbollah and some have accused the Islamic Jihad Organization of being nothing more than a covert cover for pasdaran attacks on foreign targets. So yes, it would fit the modus operandi of the U.S. government to classify them as a terroist organization so that they can target their assets in the U.S. and their allies.

The reason why I find this such an odd declaration is two-fold:
1. Labeling a legitimate, official military/police organization of a sovereign nation sets are horribly dangerous precedent, regardless of how bad they may actually be. What is to stop the US or any other country from continuing this trend and targetting the government organizations of more of their foes?

2. Why now? There haven´t been any recent earth shattering revelations about the pasdaran so why choose now to publicize labeling them as a terrorist organization? This could have just as easily been done twenty years ago and had the same effect and evidence as is being provided today. What is worse is that in a bid to gain some resemblence of peace in Iraq, the American and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq have recently engaged in widely touted talks to work together for the benefit of all three nations. Surely labelling the IRGC as a terrorist group cannot help forge a stronger working relationship between the US and Iran.

8/16/2007 9:44:34 AM

Just sit back and watch the Bush mastery of foreign policy unfold.

8/16/2007 9:49:49 AM

^ I agree with you on your first point. While I understand the reasoning behind their decision to label the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, they are a legitimate part of the Iranian government. This is an unprecedented step.

As for why, I think it's because of the upcoming Iran Counter-Proliferation Act making its way through Congress. The bill has a tremendous amount of support in both houses right now with the potential of being a veto-proof majority. One of the bill's provisions is to force the President to do what he just did. Again, this is one of two things. Either its a calculated negotiated step (which in my opinion would be far overreaching) in terms of current negotiations between the United States and Iran, or the White House is attempting to blunt support for the bill by enacting one of its symbolically strongest parts in hopes of peeling away support for the provisions that the EU and the Russians are so staunchly against (and would potentially be the most diplomatically awkward).

8/16/2007 9:51:23 AM

This is old news.

A while back ago they passed a bill that labeled Hmongs in Laos and Northern Afghan rebel groups as terrorists. Even though the Hmong sided with the CIA during the Vietnam war and the Northern Afghani are still fighting against the Taliban to this day. These two groups have done nothing to harm US interests, yet are labeled terrorists. Go figure.

8/16/2007 10:04:20 AM

Yet the Hmong and the Afghani rebels are not an integral part of an organized state. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is tightly organized into the Islamic Republic of Iran.

8/16/2007 10:14:40 AM

^^ yeah as redguard already said, the difference between your examples and the Pasdaran is that the Pasdaran are a legitimate entity of the Iranian government. Also, if you take a look at the official U.S. listing of terrorist organizations, you may notice that there are quite a few that do not officially threaten the US

8/16/2007 10:26:46 AM

it'd be like some major country declaring that the US Army was a terrorist organization.




(wait for it....)

8/16/2007 10:27:29 AM

I heard about this, isnt iran causing the terrorist arabs to fight us in iraq? thats terrorism

8/16/2007 11:11:00 AM

too bad we couldnt just steal all of irans oil...then we wouldnt have to worry about them anymore

8/16/2007 11:11:57 AM

I think just like most people iran people are nice and like americans and would want our help. its just that they get brainwashed in these arab countries

8/16/2007 11:16:04 AM

Thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the administration would have been better off waiting for the ICPA to pass through Congress. From a political standpoint, that would allow Bush to adopt the measure while sharing the diplomatic fallout for it with the Democratic leadership in Congress. True, the ICPA would probably have limited Bush's diplomatic options by forcing the White House to enact harsher sanctions, but then at least Bush could claim to the EU and Russians that the Congressional Democrats forced him into taking this more provocative and diplomatically stupid action. The Republicans can score a few points while the hawks can turn the screws tighter on Iran.

The cynic in me wants to believe that Lantos helped birth this crazy bill in part to force the administration to take a much harder stance against Iran. This way, the Democrats could force the White House to take even more extreme action to further fuel the Democratic base and independent disgruntlement and thus further improve their chances of a total, veto-proof sweep of the Capitol in 2008.

Regardless, the administration demonstrates its lack of political savvy again with this move. They should have either waited and let the Democrats "force" him into taking action against the Revolutionary Guard or simply took a stand against this nonsense. The administration continues to look inconsistent and is probably confusing the hell out of everyone, increasing diplomacy on one hand and them backhanding the Iranians the next moment.

8/16/2007 11:46:34 AM

Quote :

"I think just like most people iran people are nice ... its just that they get brainwashed in these arab countries"

okay.

you're funny.

whose alias are you now?

I'm gonna throw out a guess: BeetsNrithem ?

8/16/2007 12:02:00 PM